Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein says Donald Trump is less scary on foreign wars, because he wants to work with
Russia.

JILL STEIN: It's important to look at where we are going. It's not just a moment in time, but where has the strategy of voting for the lesser
evil taken us?

All these times you have been told to vote for the lesser evil because you didn't want the wars, or the meltdown of the climate, or the offshoring of
our jobs, or the attack on immigrants, or the massive bailout for Wall Street, but that is actually what we have gotten. By the droves.

Because we with public interest allow ourselves to be silent, and voted for the lesser evil. But the lesser evil doesn't solve the problem.

[JILL STEIN:] I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We
have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.

On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war
with Russia.

He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with
Russia.

Jill Stein is the Green Party's candidate for the Presidency of the USA, but she was denied the right to participate in the Presidential Debates in
the USA. Her observations about Hillary Clinton and her policies leading to nuclear war will likely not be heard by many, but her observations should
give anyone pause about voting for the major party candidates and especially the hawkish Hillary Clinton with her foreign policy outlook and her part
in the conflict in Libya when she was the USA's Secretary of State under President Obama.

Keeping her and Johnson out of the debates made sure that the only voice heard in contrast and contradiction to Clinton would be Donald Trump. I feel
certain that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would have so outclassed both major parties' candidates in the debates that there would have been much more
to the USA's election than trying to determine which is the lesser of 2 evils.

That said, Jill Stein's warning on Hillary Clinton and nuclear war needs to be taken very seriously as Stein is not merely emoting but she is giving a
critique of Clinton's policies and past performance as Secretary of State.

Keeping her and Johnson out of the debates made sure that the only voice heard in contrast and contradiction to Clinton would be Donald Trump. I feel
certain that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would have so outclassed both major parties' candidates in the debates that there would have been much more
to the USA's election than trying to determine which is the lesser of 2 evils.

That said, Jill Stein's warning on Hillary Clinton and nuclear war needs to be taken very seriously as Stein is not merely emoting but she is giving a
critique of Clinton's policies and past performance as Secretary of State.

Regardless of whether she's right wrong...regardless of her motivation: I want to see both candidates challenged on questions like Jill Stein has.

a reply to: Kapriti
At first I didn't get it. She's saying don't vote for Hillary because Hillary is hawkish and may start a--potentially nuclear--conflict with Russia?
So she can't mean vote for Trump, right? Then I read the article. She says don't vote for Trump either because he's right-wing extremism. He's the
result of failed left-wing policies--like NAFTA. She's saying both the right and left parties are interlinked and the result of each other's actions.
She's saying don't vote for the lesser-evil. Don't choose between two evils. Vote independent.

I have a probelm with it though. I've voted independent since Gore. The problem is none of the independents have a chance. And I think Hillary is the
lesser evil. I really don't want to see Trump win and still think it's possible. I can't change the fact Hillary is establishment. It's not her fault
the US has a history of meddling in and bombing other countries. She does what politicians do. Most of us in her position would be doing the same. I
sincerely believe our intelligence agencies are giving our politicians information which supports military action across the world. Whether it's
ultimately true or not is unfortunately beyond the capacity of most of us. Frankly, my own feeling about it is based on the limited information I have
and my intuitions. If intelligence reports and national security advisors are telling me a story contrary to my own intuition and thoughts, I have to
heed it, especially if I'm serving over 300 million people. My own opinions have to be set aside because those millions of people rely on me to make
reasonable factual decisions. What choice would I have, short of acquiring superhuman powers and being able to time travel, so I could prove wrong or
right the information they give me?

I don't like these wars and I don't like meddling in other countries. I don't like the idea of us supporting rebels or opposition fighters. This is
what has been going on in Syria since at least 2011. Multiple countries are involved in varying ways. My gut reaction is to leave Syria alone until
the evidence against it is undeniable. And yet there may be valid reason for meddling or a no fly zone. And Assad may in fact be killing his own
population and accruing numerous human rights violations. The UN has a RToP policy whereby if a leader is shown to be doing XYZ then military
intervention is permitted. Hence, if Assad truly is mass murdering his own people, the UN is obligated to militarily intervene. (RToP was formally and
unanimously passed in 2005 by the United Nations General Assembly.)

Regarding UN action in Syria, the problem that first presents itself is that Russia and the People's Republic of China dispute the USA and western
European claims regarding Assad. Their position may be entirely political, but it makes USA intervention in Syria a recipe for conflict between the
USA on one side and Russia and the People's Republic of China on the other side.

In this election cycle, I know it is painfully difficult for US citizens to decide what to do. But if there was ever a time to register clear
rejection of the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans, I think this election is the time to do so in whatever way one decides is most
effective.

I was really disappointed when she wasn't allowed at the debate. It was one of the most watched programs on TV and if she had been given a fair shot
at speaking, there might be a lot more of us supporting her.

Shouldn't the Syrian government decide who flys in their own sovereign territory? With the allies we have currently killing civilians in Yemen we have
no moral leg to stand on and the usa has propped up worse dictators than assad.
Russia is invited to help a legitimate government fight a mostly foreign sponsored conflict.
Why would the western powers many America impose a no fly zone if not to start a major war with Russia?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.